Anil Chandra Paul vs The State of Assam and Others

K. Lahiri, A.C.J.

This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directed against the order dated 15.9.1983 of the Government of Assam rejecting the review application filed by the Petitioner holding that there was no ground for review, vide Annexure-C to the petition. It is stated by the Petitioner that under the provisions of the Assam Forest Produce. Coupes and Mahals under Tender System Rules, 1977, the Divisional Forest Officer, Karimganj Division issued a Short Sale Notice on 18th April, 1983, inviting tenders for settlement of Gumra Stone Quarry for the period from 15.5.83 to 31.10.84 and the last date fixed for submission of tenders as 27.4.83 at 3 p.m. This is almost the verbatim production of the case of the Petitioner as contained in paragraph 2 of his writ petition. The Petitioner submitted his tender offering Rs. 4,50.000.50p while Respondent No. 5 offered Rt. 6,50,000/-. As such the difference between the tender of the Petitioner and that of Respondent No. 5 was of Rs. 2lakhs (less 50 p.) Naturally, the Chief Conservator of Forests, Assam, settled the stone quarry in favour of Respondent No, 5. The term of settlement of the stone quarry was from 15.5.83 to 31.10.84. The Petitioner preferred a review petition against the order of settlement of the Conservator of Forests. The main grievance of the Petitioners that by the sale notice the parties were granted only ten days'' time submit their tender which is violative of Rule 4 of the Rules. Rule 4, inter alia, provides that a notice calling for tender for file of coups or Mahal etc, shall be published in the official gazette by Divisional Forest Officer not less than one month before the last date fixed for submission of tender. However, Rule 5 provides that for resale, publication in the official gazette will not be necessary, According to the Petitioner, the review Petition was heard and disposed of by the Governor without affording the Petitioner any opportunity.

In the instant case, the notice calling for tender was violative of Rule 4 of the Rules. But the crucial question is whether it caused any prejudice to the Petitioner to give rise to any claim to set at naught the entire settlement process. Mr. De learned Counsel for the Petitioner submit that having had knowledge that tenders were invited for sale of Gumara Stone Quarry be filed his tender. In para 2 of his petition, the Petitioner also claims that in so far as the parties were concerned, the notice was appropriate and it was duly issued in accordance with the provisions of "the Rules". So that as it may, in the instant case, the objection of the Petitioner was merely a technical one. He has not been prejudiced by the short-term notice which was done in alleged breach of Rule 4 of ''the Rules''. At any rate, the Petitioner cannot complain of any breach as he had full opportunity to file his tender and he did so. No other registered contractors or intending tenderer has lodged any protest against the issuance of the notice. Accordingly, we hold that the Petitioner, in the facts of the present case, was not prejudiced and the settlement proceeding cannot be declared to be illegal and void. We may pass over this question and enter into another arena.

In the instant case, the term of settlement is from 15.5.83 to 31.10.84. Mr. N.M. Lahiri, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 5 has categorically stated that the period of settlement is over. Shri A.S. Bhattaeharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, also adopts this submission of Mr. Lahiri, We have also pursued the original agreement executed by Respondent No. 5 with the Government of Assam and it appears that according to the original agreement, the period has already expired. As such this application has become infructuous.

Assuming that it has not expired and it has to expire on 31.10.85 as claimed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, what we find is that even if we allow the petition and remit the case back for re-hearing of the review petition, the same cannot be disposed of within 3/4 months. Even if the Petitioner obtains a favourable order, be may be entitled to operate the quarry only for a month or two. At any rate, it would create problems for all the parties including the Petitioner. It will not be gainful for the Petitioner to work in the quarry only for a month or two. We find that in the review petition, the sole ground taken up by the Petitioner was that the notice for tender was issued in breach of Rule 4 of the Rules. Even if the reviewing authority holds that there was breach of Rule 4, it can only direct resettlement of the quarry following the provisions of Rule 4 of the Rules and the Petitioner will not be entitled to get settlement. Under these circumstances the Petitioner cannot get the desired relief claimed by him even if his petition is allowed.

In our opinion, we are firmly of the opinion that in the, instant case, the Petitioner was not prejudiced because of the breach of the procedure contained in Rule 4 of the Rules.

For the foregoing reasons, we hold that there is no merit in this application and the same is dismissed as such. We make no order as to costs.